What is the likelihood that this ignorant question was already asked in this very thread, and answered in my post #114, and you didn't bother to read the thread first before diving in?
Oh, right, the likelihood of that is "certainty".
And what is the likelihood that you have already asked this same question and already had it answered before in this post, eleven short days ago? You can't even claim not to have seen it, because you responded to it.
So why are you now dishonestly pretending to not know the answer to your question? And why are you dishonestly pretending that we responding to such questions with "nothing but silence", as you falsely claim in this same post:
Evolutionists are great at speaking in very broad terms about small changes over long periods of time, but when forced to look at what would be required at some particular point when a new species could appear, there is nothing but silence or unsupported claim that such a specific event is not required for evolution to be true.
He says that there is "nothing but silence" from evolutionists in response to questions about "what would be required" for evolutionary change. But not only is this false, HE MAKES HIS SNOTTY FALSE CLAIM ATTACHED TO A QUESTION THAT HE *KNOWS* WE'VE ALREADY ANSWERED RECENTLY.
Just how dishonest *does* someone have to be to be an anti-evolution creationist, anyway?
Are there recognizable degrees of dishonesty? Maybe so, but for one who persists in being a creationist after significant exposure to to the information presented in these threads, I'd say 100% dishonesty is pretty close.
Apparently connectthedots is having a little problem connecting the dots!